Totally agree with this.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Potential rule changes- a discussion paper for clubs
- Thread starter nobbyiscool
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Totally agree with this.
AFL has no credability as a sport outside of Australia and fast losing it in Australia. You know why? Because we keep changing the rules and every rule changes the game, the way its played and the spectacle.
Just because the bulldogs stepped over the line four times to give away points, we have to change the rule. Every time one little thing happens, we have old farts like KB trying to change the game to what it was in the seventies and eighties. What he doesn't get is through professionalism the game is evolving, but no he wants to put rules in place to change it.
The fans donot want any more changes and infact some rules should be rolled back to what they were.
This game is so over policed that we have to bring in more and more umpires, now they are looking at four umpires, that will also change the game and fans will be screaming at the different interpretations.
For god sake leave the bloody game alone.
No rule changes please.
The AFL have been ridiculous about this over the last couple of years. Most of their rule changes have contradicted one another.
The quick kick out rule was to speed the game up. Now, they want to limit interchanges? That will do nothing but slow the game down, especially in the later stages. No one wants this.
The play-on for kicking backwards thing is even worse. If you think flooding is bad now, you haven't seen anything. What happens these days if a team floods? The opposition is paitent and tries to pinpoint a pass. Sometimes they have to kick around 50m arc or back into the square for this to happen. A lot of the time, if they are paitent enough and their skills are good enough, they'll be rewarded.
If this rule is brought in, they'll have no option but to kick the ball long into the forward line, doing exactly what the defence wants. Because of superior numbers, they'll most likely just clean up and waltz out of the back line.
I swear, if they bring that rule in, the hands in the back crap will pale in comparison to the ramifications of no mark for kicking backwards. Just watch.
The AFL have been ridiculous about this over the last couple of years. Most of their rule changes have contradicted one another.
The quick kick out rule was to speed the game up. Now, they want to limit interchanges? That will do nothing but slow the game down, especially in the later stages. No one wants this.
The play-on for kicking backwards thing is even worse. If you think flooding is bad now, you haven't seen anything. What happens these days if a team floods? The opposition is paitent and tries to pinpoint a pass. Sometimes they have to kick around 50m arc or back into the square for this to happen. A lot of the time, if they are paitent enough and their skills are good enough, they'll be rewarded.
If this rule is brought in, they'll have no option but to kick the ball long into the forward line, doing exactly what the defence wants. Because of superior numbers, they'll most likely just clean up and waltz out of the back line.
I swear, if they bring that rule in, the hands in the back crap will pale in comparison to the ramifications of no mark for kicking backwards. Just watch.
The other thing that could happen is if the players donot have space and are foraced to kick backwards and have to play on, then they will kick the ball through the opposition goals. So we going to say that this is now a ball up. Hello, the whole game has suddenly changed completly from what we are used to and have known for the past 100 years.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,168
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
Basically I'm wary of rule changes designed to force teams to play in a certain game style. There seems to be an obsession amongst Aussie rules fans that all teams should be railroaded into playing the same free flowing, long kicking direct style.
Providing the most enjoyable spectacle has to be balanced with allowing teams the integrity to play whatever style they think will help them win. Imagine telling a soccer team they can't play 10 men behind the ball against Man U at Old Trafford. Sure it would make for a better spectacle but at the cost of stripping teams of their right to play in the style that will make them most competitive.
Obviously there has to be limits, but I think the AFL has already got those covered with the deliberate OOB rules and such. I just think if we go too far we'll start removing all the tactical intrigue from the sport. If all teams are forced to play exactly the same style then for me the game will start feeling a little too contrived and predictable. Sure the skill and athleticism is fantastic but I enjoy seeing the variation of tactics employed by teams too.
It's like the old saying "I may not agree with what you're saying but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I don't always like the gameplan of some teams but I appreciate their right to play as they deem fit.
Basically I just don't have a problem with teams conceding behinds. I've never thought of it as ruining an exciting passage of play. In my opinion it's just a legitimate defensive tactic allowing teams to reload. Personally I can't see any reason to force teams to stop other than changing rules for the sake of change.
The problem is - they have made heaps of changes so everyone is calling for no more changes but its too late, they have made the changes.
Hands in the back is the worse change.
Of the new rules under consideration -
Interchange - I hate the 1000's of rotations but lets face it if they restrict Coaches will still expect the players on the field to run just as far. Goodbye fatties.
Rushed behind - I agree with this change but not 3 pts. There goes our history of scoring. Bounce at top of the square all ball given back to the team in the middle of the ground.
Kick backwards - the problem with this rule is it rewards teams that flood. It doesnt stop them from doing it. Most teams kick backwards because they look up and see 18 opposition players in their forward 50. If they switch play and is slightly goes backwards and then that player is tackled then how is that fair?
Hands in the back is the worse change.
Of the new rules under consideration -
Interchange - I hate the 1000's of rotations but lets face it if they restrict Coaches will still expect the players on the field to run just as far. Goodbye fatties.
Rushed behind - I agree with this change but not 3 pts. There goes our history of scoring. Bounce at top of the square all ball given back to the team in the middle of the ground.
Kick backwards - the problem with this rule is it rewards teams that flood. It doesnt stop them from doing it. Most teams kick backwards because they look up and see 18 opposition players in their forward 50. If they switch play and is slightly goes backwards and then that player is tackled then how is that fair?
- Banned
- #57
These threads about rule changes are always the same.
You get some people discussing the proposed changes, while the rest of the folks post their "leave the game alone" messages, or other variations.
Their posts are like hurdles for the rest of us to leap over, while we discuss the rules.
You get some people discussing the proposed changes, while the rest of the folks post their "leave the game alone" messages, or other variations.
Their posts are like hurdles for the rest of us to leap over, while we discuss the rules.
Agree Chewy.
I like talking about changing rules but usually I am against actually changing the rules. (Usually because it sporns more rule changes)
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,168
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
The problem is while every rule they propose would fix something they also all have side effects that could cause problems. It's like the short sightedness of introducing cane toads to get rid of those beetles. Sure it worked but look at the problems it created
Play on from a backwards kick for example. Sure it will fix those boring couple of minutes each quarter when teams wind the clock down. (Actually even that's debateable given those loose men are usually standing in 30m of space because teams seem adverse to manning up. Why would they bother playing on when there's no one there? And if teams start playing closer to force them to play on then why can't they man up now to stop the practise? It doesn't need a rule change, teams just need to man up.)
But the downside is flooding will become an even more effective tactic. At the moment the only way to beat a flood that's already in place is to chip the ball around until you can pinpoint a kick inside your 50. Teams are rewarded for their skill and patience. Why should we force them to hurry a kick into the teeth of the flood and reward the flooding team with an easy takeway?
Punishing rushed behinds will just take away one of the few defensive tactics left to backmen. And we know what happens every time we make life harder for backmen. That's right, coaches start flooding more because it becomes the only effective tactic given backmen are increasingly playing with one hand tied behind their back.
For the life of me I can't see what positives limiting the interchange would bring other than too slow the game down. This after the AFL has spent the last 10 years trying to speed it up. Sounds like the cane toad enigma again.
They probably think it will stop flooding but it wouldn't surprise me if coaches respond by employing perma-floods at each end. After all the AFL has made life so difficult for backmen that it's very dangerous policy to leave them one out on their own. We'll end up seeing kick to kick with 15 players clogging each 50 arc with 6 or so running back and forward through the middle.
Plus there's all the fatigue related issues such as increased susceptability to injury and the fact that the quality of play late in the game will suffer. I want to see players running and hitting contests as hard in the last quarter as they do in the first. I don't want to see boring sluggish finishes because players are too tired to get out of a jog.
Play on from a backwards kick for example. Sure it will fix those boring couple of minutes each quarter when teams wind the clock down. (Actually even that's debateable given those loose men are usually standing in 30m of space because teams seem adverse to manning up. Why would they bother playing on when there's no one there? And if teams start playing closer to force them to play on then why can't they man up now to stop the practise? It doesn't need a rule change, teams just need to man up.)
But the downside is flooding will become an even more effective tactic. At the moment the only way to beat a flood that's already in place is to chip the ball around until you can pinpoint a kick inside your 50. Teams are rewarded for their skill and patience. Why should we force them to hurry a kick into the teeth of the flood and reward the flooding team with an easy takeway?
Punishing rushed behinds will just take away one of the few defensive tactics left to backmen. And we know what happens every time we make life harder for backmen. That's right, coaches start flooding more because it becomes the only effective tactic given backmen are increasingly playing with one hand tied behind their back.
For the life of me I can't see what positives limiting the interchange would bring other than too slow the game down. This after the AFL has spent the last 10 years trying to speed it up. Sounds like the cane toad enigma again.
They probably think it will stop flooding but it wouldn't surprise me if coaches respond by employing perma-floods at each end. After all the AFL has made life so difficult for backmen that it's very dangerous policy to leave them one out on their own. We'll end up seeing kick to kick with 15 players clogging each 50 arc with 6 or so running back and forward through the middle.
Plus there's all the fatigue related issues such as increased susceptability to injury and the fact that the quality of play late in the game will suffer. I want to see players running and hitting contests as hard in the last quarter as they do in the first. I don't want to see boring sluggish finishes because players are too tired to get out of a jog.
- Banned
- #60
This is an unfounded fear, bordering on superstition. I've heard this sentiment expressed before, but there is no connection between rule changes and homogenisation of the game.
Some teams use unique individual tactics that may, or may not trangress the rules.
eg Hawthorn's way of standing the mark, when they move around to the side of the 5m "corridor".
Generally the AFL lets these things go. Rule changes are usually considered, only when a tactic becomes widespread and clearly defies the spirit of the game.
The object of the game is to play - to get the ball up the ground and through the big sticks.
The deliberate rushed behind is CLEARLY not in the spirit of the game.
It is exploiting the rules.
Once upon a time, the kick-out was a neutral play. It was a 50/50 situation.
A way of restarting play with a long bomb to a huge pack at CHB.
No longer!
The high skill level and assured decision-making of today's footballer has meant that kickouts are a weapon - most teams are adept at moving the ball directly into their forward 50m zone from the kick-out.
I'm not talking about styles of play. If a team wants to chip it around, then good luck to 'em. If they want to kick it long, by all means...
All I'm asking for is that we stop rewarding teams for the cowardly act of deliberately conceding a behind.
Under the current rules, we only penalise them 1 point (not really a penalty) and then we award them a free kick from the goal square.
I'm not suggesting we prohibit them from conceding a behind. Under the proposed new rules, they can still concede a behind, they just won't be awarded the free kick from the restart.
All teams chicken out and concede the rushed behind.
There is nothing unique or interesting about this play.
All it achieves is that it snuffs out a goal-scoring chance and denies us all a bit of excitement. That's why we applaud when our own team does it. We are on edge about our team conceding the goal and the relief washes over us when our full back does the "smart" (but cowardly) thing.
Sure. I'm not denying their right to concede.
I just want to see rules that take away their incentive to kill the play.
Of course it's an exciting part of the game. A loose ball bobbling around the goal square. I'd much rather see Scarlett's skills and ability to gather the ball and evade Gehrig's tackle than watch him knock it backwards over the line. That is such a nothing, skill-less play.
Tell me the difference between knocking the ball deliberately out of bounds, or knocking it through for a behind. In effect they are both the same. Why aren't we consistent with our rules? We penalise one, but we reward the other.
It is not change for the sake of change.
That is an empty, hollow turn of phrase used by people who don't want to see ANY rule changes.
I'll tell you the way I look at it:
There is basic spirit in which our game should be played (and has always been played)
This can involve all sorts of styles and different degrees of skill and aggression.
But the Laws Of the Game are there to preserve the "spirit of the game"
In today's professional era, teams attempt to gain an edge wherever possible and bypass the "spirit oif the game".
Sometimes there are existing rules which we need to reinforce - enter Jeff Gieschen and Umpires.
Sometimes we need to update the Laws and close the loopholes - enter Adrian, KB and the Laws of the game committee.
We should never have allowed the situation to evolve where we reward a team for conceding a behind. It used to be a penalty of sorts. But no longer. It is a shitty tactic and we should make it a neutral play (ball-up) when teams do it.
Why not just ban defenders ?
We have stopped them kicking out on the full, from kicking out on the bounce, from knocking the arms, from touching the back, from physically intimidating, and now maybe from rushing a point.
We have stopped them kicking out on the full, from kicking out on the bounce, from knocking the arms, from touching the back, from physically intimidating, and now maybe from rushing a point.
- Banned
- #62
I agree with this.
Let's get one thing clear. The AFL will say this or that, but the motivation behind many of these changes is that they are trying to rid the game of the flooding tactics and the "tempo" possession tactics.
The game (as a spectacle) has declined in recent years as these tactics have evolved.
The AFL are scared of of the devaluing effects this will have on its precious product.
So they've tinkered about the edges with rule changes (or proposed changes) to limit these tactics.
The quick kick in rule was designed to allow teams to beat the zones and go "coast to coast" before their opposition had the chance to get set defensively.
Now they want to limit the number of interchanges because they think it will stop teams from flooding - players will be less fresh and less inclined to run back into their defensive 50m zone.
It makes me laugh that Vlad and Anderson don't admit this. Flooding is the new "F" word. It's the devil.... So they give all these other cockamamie reasons for these useless ad-hoc rule changes and secretly try to stop the unstoppable.
Face it, Vlad. Possession footy and zone defences are here to stay....
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,168
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
I'm not against all rule changes. I like the new faster kick in rule (contrary to most on here it would seem) because I like to see the game flowing along. Making players wait for the flag seemed to be creating a break in play just for the sake of it.
I can't see any logical reason why the attacking team should be given that chance to man up on the kicking out team. They had their opportunity to score and they weren't good enough, either because they kicked a behind or they fluffed their entry into the 50 and allowed the defenders to rush a behind. Now it's the other teams chance to whisk the ball up the other end and try to score.
It's the same reason I don't mind rushed behinds. I'd rather see a team concede then quickly restart play and get the game flowing again than watch ball up after ball up as the defending team desperately bottle up the ball at the top of the square.
One interpretation I would like to see change is the umpires becoming more relaxed about players playing on when they're off the line. Lining players up perfectly in line when they're having a shot at goal is fine, but it irritates me when a back pocket takes his free and the umpire calls the play back because he was a metre off his line. All it does is disadvantage the team with the free kick.
- Banned
- #64
Yeah, I agree with this in terms of the anti-flooding rules.
But we shouldn't get those misguided rule changes confused with the other good rule changes.
You seem to want to lump all rule changes into the one basket.
Take it on a case by case basis and ask yourself: is this rule change necessary?
Hands in the back? Yes. Necessary rule change.
The marking contests had become farcical.
The man in front was severely disadvantaged.
Umpires could no longer apply the "in the back" law.
Deliberate rushed behind? Yes. Necessary rule change.
Defenders have adopted this tactic more and more. (More than doubled from 5 years ago)
Denies us a chance to see the players play.
Restricting interchange? No. Completely unnecessary.
An articial attempt to stymie the flooding game.
This will lower the standard of play as players become tired.
No evidence that it will eliminate flooding anyway.
What are the AFL's given reasons for this rule change?
To prevent "collision" injuries?
They've gotta be joking...Who are they trying to kid?
Completely disagree - rushing is a perfectly legitimate defence (confession - I played full back). If the forwards aren't good enough to kick it through the big sticks, bugger them.
I would love to see interchange restricted. Let players tire. Personally I would love to see 18 v 18 again, but I know it will never happen. Seeing top players off the ground being rested for 'fresh legs' is annoying. Guys being dragged after kicking a goal is a joke - being dragged should be a disgrace not a reward (and I know I am just being old & cranky)
- Banned
- #66
Yeah, this is true.
I only agree with this rule in principle as a way of stopping teams from kicking backwards and milking the clock.
I don't believe this is a big issue. We'd hardly notice this rule change, which is why I'm ambivalent about it.
Be careful with your conclusions.
This proposed rule change does not "force" teams to kick it into the flood.
Teams will still chip it backwards. They just won't be awarded a mark.
They won't be able to bleed the clock by going back over their mark.
Which is why I kind of agree with it.
I like rules which encourage the players to play and discourage players from stalling or avoiding the game.
I'd only change the rule for behinds deliberately conceded from a kick-in. eg. Player can't find an option immediately, delays kick-in. Umpire gives him the whistle. Still hasn't kicked in. Umpires calls play on. Full forward closes in, player backs over line and concedes a behind. It has started to happen a lot in red time, and it is only a matter of time before a team wastes a full minute and 5 behinds but the opposition have no chance of getting the footy.
I'd make it a neutral ball situation — treat the ball as having gone OOB or ball it up 15m out from goal.
Again, so what ???!!!
If the team has built up a lead, they should be able to do what they like - hell rush 100 behinds if they are 101 in front. Leave the game alone !!
- Banned
- #69
This is unmitigated rubbish.
People always use this emotive rot to justify the defenders' cheating.
Defenders were never allowed to rake their opponents arms. They got away with it because they were subtle, but if the umpires busted them, they were penalised for "interference". Over the years, subtelty went out the window as meatheads like Jason Cloke specialised in full-blooded roundhouse spoils that took both arms of his opponent. And so we had the "chopping of the arms" rule interpretation.
Defenders use the rushed behind as a tactic because it's the percentage play and there is no penalty. They are actully rewarded. They remove the imminent pressure of being tackled or fumbling. They concede a behind and their opponent must back off 10m and allow him to kick out (a free kick)
If we took away this tactic, they would find another means of preventing their opponents from scoring a goaL. Heaven forbid they should attempt to win the ball and pass the ball to one of their teammates. Isn't this supposed to be the idea?
You want to reward the skill-less and the hacks.
I want to encourage the bold and adventurous.
It's not about making life harder for defenders. It's about levelling the playing field. The rushed behind is an anomaly in our game. It is inconsistent with every other rule in the book. Every other rule is designed to encourage fair play. The current loophole rewards unfair play and gives the defenders an advantage over their opponents.
Time wasting is policed by a number of rules, as are deliberate acts that deny the ball to the opposition. This is just another one. Do you not support changes to rules that eliminate deliberate time-wasting?
Should add that I don't have a problem with defenders rushing a behind in general play. No problem at all. I do have a problem with the scenario outlined above though.
The 'problem' only arose due to the quick kick-in.
See, a changed rule creates a problem which now sees calls for a further rule change.
A rule taken from Gaelic where the goal scoring rules are different was never going to work seamlessly.
See, a changed rule creates a problem which now sees calls for a further rule change.
A rule taken from Gaelic where the goal scoring rules are different was never going to work seamlessly.
It isn't deliberate time-wasting, it is legitimate play.
There is nothing illegal about bringing the ball into play and then rushing a behind (I don't really support it, but it is leagl and legitimate)
Half the time they don't even bring it back into play. They just back over the line.
I note that you don't support it, and of course it is legal, because the rule hasn't changed...yet
I'm definitely in the "stop changing the rules" camp, but this is a very specific situation where teams are exploiting a loop-hole to deny the opposition the ball. I think the defending team has an obligation to, at the very least, leave the square and put the ball back into play.
- Banned
- #74
Agree 100%
The AFL are idiots for even considering this rule change.
The heavy rotations and constant use of interchange is one of the great innovations in the AFL. Games used to be played over 3 quarters and the last quarter would become a slog - a last man standing affair.
The games today are played at flat-chat speed for the full 2 hours. The product is infinitely superior to what it was. I am at a loss why the AFL would want to mess with this. They think it will eliminate flooding, but they are sadly mistaken.
The AFL need to listen to the coaches on this one...
Players WILL be more suceptible to injury as fatigue sets in.
Adrian Anderson has said that currently, players are more susceptible to high impact, collision injuries.
What a crock!
[Come clean Adrian! Just admit that you're trying to stymie the zone defenses.]
As I've said before, if the AFL want to prevent zone defences, there is no point tinkering about the edges with stupid, ill-advised rule changes. They need to identify the "problem" (if there is one) and make a rule that directly affects the situation.
You don't cure a brain tumour with a foot massage.
That's a bit different. Maybe a fair compromise is that the player bringing the ball into play cannot rush it himself (even get rid of the tap kick) ie he can pass to a back pocket who can rush it or who can pass it back to him for rushing.
Similar threads
